Marvel Films MCU X-Men - Part 4

[Herofan]

There's also, I suspect some disinterest in retreading a story that they know so well, similar to what some folks felt about a High School Peter Parker pre-Homecoming. If you fall in love with a mature version of the character, then seeing them immature feels like personally losing something, and some people still have a sore spot with his sidekicking to Tony.

Yes them being young and starting out when most contemporary heroes are also pretty new to their roles is almost entirely different to them starting out when other heroes have already been saving the world and getting adored and/or despised by the public for years and actually over a decade. Let alone if/when you have (as probably will happen) them outright looking up to the older established heroes.

Another significant issue with starting them and having them be real young (teenagers/HS) is that the actors (even newcomers) probably won't want to do more than a few films so if you have two or three solo HS years films and three crossover appearances you wouldn't ever get the adult experienced versions (or in just one film) short of recastings. That would be a lot less of a problem if the MCU started having a lot fewer crossover appearances but that's unlikely.

The Harry Potter films were an inspiration for Marvel Studios Spider-Man and may be for its X-Men but actors being willing to do a Harry Potter-length series/character portrayal seems unlikely.

 

[Herofan]

We have a chance to really tell the story of the X-Men the RIGHT way. Look at the way Marvel has handled ALL of their mainline franchises

View attachment 18877

Every single one starts their hero as the unfinished article.

Well I personally think, and I hope many would agree, that TWS was a much better film than CA:TFA and that, aside from maybe the relationship with Bucky, CA:TFA was not essential to or even adding much to TWS (or The Avengers).

 

[BoredGuy]

Also, pertaining to that attached image... it should be noted that Thor has been Thor for thousands of years. He had to go through some trials, yes, as the X-Men will certainly have to do, but we didn't need an origin story.. we just got his "Midgardian Origin" if you will. Black Panther was also the Black Panther, we just saw his ascendance to the throne

 

[Marvel united]

Also, pertaining to that attached image... it should be noted that Thor has been Thor for thousands of years. He had to go through some trials, yes, as the X-Men will certainly have to do, but we didn't need an origin story.. we just got his "Midgardian Origin" if you will. Black Panther was also the Black Panther, we just saw his ascendance to the throne

But that's not the same. Thor is immortal. In the comics, he started out as an immortal being with thousands of years of experience. His "origin story" is him learning humility and humanity, which he had never known before. That's really the only type of self discovery journey a character like Thor can have.


Black Panther ascending to the throne is part of his origin story in the comics. T'Challa became the Black Panther after T'Chaka was murdered in the comics and he spent the next few years training to become a King. The MCU did the origin story, the only difference is - he was Black Panther before T'Chaka was murdered and the reason why they had to make this change is because he died much earlier in T'Challa's life in the comics.


The only true equivalent to starting off with a seasoned X-Men who have been around for 10 years is starting Spider-Man off as a science teacher in his late 20s.

 

[Iceman]

I'm sure there's more to what you're thinking than what you're saying, but taking it literally, 18 year olds are adults and assertive people don't wait until their 20s and 30s to do so.

True. Although to get to a certain level you also need experience in your field. The guy on his first day at the job might be the most assertive person in the world but he won't be able to confidently talk about things he has no knowdege of yet. In the way you're talking even some 12 years olds who are on the path to greatness were plenty assertive at that age but you don't get taken seriously until you have something to back that up. Even those middle aged corporate CEOs who are as confident as they come wouldn't get taken seriously on their first mission if they run into Cap and co without field experience.

 

[EnDz0n3]

Scott's gunna be a tough one to cast, that's for sure
Marvel was so short on good options for Cap they had to re-use somebody who had already been in a Marvel film
there's, amazingly, kind of a scarcity of good young white male actors at the moment

The good thing about casting Scott is, they don’t have to limit themselves to Americans like they did with Steve. I think they really lucked out with Evans. I think he’s the perfect Cap. I’m really gonna miss the guy.

 

[Marvel united]

One scenario i see working, that fits within Marvel's storytelling model. The O5 X-Men were a team in 2010/2012 (not 1990) but they disbanded for whatever reason. They haven't been fighting Magneto, they haven't been fighting Sentinels, Shadow King, the Brood and all of their rogues all this time. They are in their mid 20s now and they've all went their seperate ways. Staying out the spotlight. When the mutant boom happens in the 2020s, Charles brings them back together along with new members and they aren't seasoned badassses because they are rusty with their powers. Maybe Scott was secretly saving people during the Thanos invasion. Isolated incidents like that. But Uncanny X-Men in 2022-2023 is a pseudo origin story in the sense that the X-Men are rediscovering who they are.

 

[BoredGuy]

But that's not the same. Thor is immortal. In the comics, he started out as an immortal being with thousands of years of experience. His "origin story" is him learning humility and humanity, which he had never known before. That's really the only type of self discovery journey a character like Thor can have.


Black Panther ascending to the throne is part of his origin story in the comics. T'Challa became the Black Panther after T'Chaka was murdered in the comics and he spent the next few years training to become a King. The MCU did the origin story, the only difference is - he was Black Panther before T'Chaka was murdered and the reason why they had to make this change is because he died much earlier in T'Challa's life in the comics.


The only true equivalent to starting off with a seasoned X-Men who have been around for 10 years is starting Spider-Man off as a science teacher in his late 20s.

nahh... Thor learning humility and humanity is a lesson learned over the course of the film. If your character doesn't learn or grow throughout a film, that's a crap movie. But the X-Men being 20-ish rather than teens does not prevent them from learning and growing to become heroes at that later age. Panther's comics origin is irrelevant to this discussion. And the X-Men, again, don't have to be a ten year old well-oiled team who have fought tons of villains, they can still be learning to be heroes at college age, so the Spidey example is a bit of a strawman

 

[Iceman]

They could have been fighting much lower level threats as in none of the named villains we know about. You can still build up field experience that way in the way the world's military have been/are doing before they take on any future threat from outside Earth. Spidey used to stop local burglars before fighting any named villains for eg. Also Spidey is just a younger trending hero in all iterations and over time, unlike the non-student X-Men who have been portrayed as adults in the majority of their successful era, while the book of the O5 as an inexperienced team got cancelled due to lack of interest.

 

[Marvel united]

nahh... Thor learning humility and humanity is a lesson learned over the course of the film. If you're character doesn't learn or grow throughout a film, that's a crap movie. But the X-Men being 20-ish rather than teens does not prevent them from learning and growing to become heroes at that later age. Panther's comics origin is irrelevant to this discussion. And the X-Men, again, don't have to be a ten year old well-oiled team who have fought tons of villains, they can still be learning to be heroes at college age, so the Spidey example is a bit of a strawman

This is more about the X-Men being fully developed and completely in-tune with how to be perfect heroes when we meet them. It took the Avengers a full movie before they became a badass, grizzled team. The Avengers spent the entirety of act 1 and act 2 at odds with one another, they had to LEARN how to work together and become a team. The Avengers (2012) was an origin story for how "Earth's mightiest heroes found themselves united against a common threat".

If you start with a 32 year old Cyclops who has been learning and leading for 16 years like Captain Wagner is suggesting, you are losing 5 movies worth of development for the character. Completely skipping over all of Scott's struggles, all of his trials and challenges he faced in the past that conglomerated into him becoming the badass, grizzled warrior we meet in the first movie. This is not right. And it's why no solo MCU film has started a hero off as the peak version of themselves. Where is the investment? How do you even develop somebody who is already at peak performance? Who already knows everything? This is not how good stories are told let alone the fact that it's detrimental to longevity in the MCU.

 

[CaptainWagner]

If you start with a 32 year old Cyclops who has been learning and leading for 16 years like Captain Wagner is suggesting, you are losing 5 movies worth of development for the character. Completely skipping over all of Scott's struggles, all of his trials and challenges he faced in the past that conglomerated into him becoming the badass, grizzled warrior we meet in the first movie. This is not right. And it's why no solo MCU film has started a hero off as the peak version of themselves. Where is the investment? How do you even develop somebody who is already at peak performance? Who already knows everything? This is not how good stories are told let alone the fact that it's detrimental to longevity in the MCU.

But for me, that's the whole point. I want an older Cyclops because I want him to already be a leader. There are SO MANY X-Men, many of whom have never had their stories told in film. I don't want to spend another three movies watching Scott learn to lead, I want to see him as Xavier's right hand man. If he was going to be the focus of the franchise, then no, they wouldn't start at his peak. But I don't want him to be the focus, and I don't think Marvel will go that route. I want to see him as a leader and role model, and I think that's the likeliest route for the new movies to take.

 

[BoredGuy]

You both make good points

it really does just depend on who you think should get the primary focus, be the "Starlord of the X-Men" basically

Idk, I'm glad Feige and the writers are in charge of that stuff, I would not be able to handle the stress of that job

 

[Herofan]

If you fall in love with a mature version of the character, then seeing them immature feels like personally losing something, and some people still have a sore spot with his sidekicking to Tony.

To reiterate, this is/should be a big, worrying deal. Feige and others at Marvel seemed to think that at least with Spider-Man high school age meant incompetent or minimally competent, literally have to be saved by another hero twice though he can then succeed and save the day at the end of the film.

 

[Marvel united]

But for me, that's the whole point. I want an older Cyclops because I want him to already be a leader. There are SO MANY X-Men, many of whom have never had their stories told in film. I don't want to spend another three movies watching Scott learn to lead, I want to see him as Xavier's right hand man. If he was going to be the focus of the franchise, then no, they wouldn't start at his peak. But I don't want him to be the focus, and I don't think Marvel will go that route. I want to see him as a leader and role model, and I think that's the likeliest route for the new movies to take.

Another 3? When did we ever see Scott learn how to lead? That's a character arc we've never seen on-screen... Ever. When we meet Cyclops in X1, he's exactly what you are describing. A role model to the younger kids at the Mansion. Somebody fully confident, already at peak; already knows how to be a perfect hero. And guess what? Scott never had a lesson to learn in the OT. He never had any growth. Instead, Singer focused on Wolverine who WAS starting from the bottom; who was finding himself for the first time. The hero's journey was applied exclusively to Logan.

And in Apocalypse, He wasn't learning how to "lead" anything or anyone. They weren't even officially the X-Men until the last 5 minutes of the movie. He had no character arc in Apocalypse, he only existed to further Charles' development.


You're essentially tired of seeing a character arc that's never been shown. You're right, because having a peak X-Men is a dead end as far as character development is concerned. Making Scott and the classic X-Men NOT the focus but instead only existing as role model figure heads/mascot archetypes to a team of young mutants -- is the only way that going this route makes any sense at all. And telling a Legacy story in the first movie in itself makes zero sense. This is the first movie in what is going to be a trilogy of films In the MCU and then further development in non X-Men movies. How, exactly is Marvel telling a Hank Pym-esque legacy story with the core X-Men the likeliest route to take? The story that should be the Endgame of the X-Men in the MCU? If anything, this is the LEAST likely route they are going to take because it goes against their storytelling model. What you're suggesting is essentially an adaptation of X-Men: Red and Bendis' Uncanny X-Men. But the problem is, we are not 9 years into an MCU X-Men franchise -- a story like that would not feel earned at all.

 

[EnDz0n3]

If you start with a 32 year old Cyclops who has been learning and leading for 16 years like Captain Wagner is suggesting, you are losing 5 movies worth of development for the character.

That quoted post that you're responding to says "But the X-Men being 20-ish."

 

[CaptainWagner]

You're essentially tired of seeing a character arc that's never been shown. You're right, because having a peak X-Men is a dead end as far as character development is concerned. Making Scott and the classic X-Men NOT the focus but instead only existing as role model figure heads/mascot archetypes to a team of young mutants -- is the only way that going this route makes any sense at all. And telling a Legacy story in the first movie in itself makes zero sense. This is the first movie in what is going to be a trilogy of films In the MCU and then further development in non X-Men movies. How, exactly is Marvel telling a Hank Pym-esque legacy story with the core X-Men the likeliest route to take? The story that should be the Endgame of the X-Men in the MCU? If anything, this is the LEAST likely route they are going to take because it goes against their storytelling model. What you're suggesting is essentially an adaptation of X-Men: Red and Bendis' Uncanny X-Men. But the problem is, we are not 9 years into an MCU X-Men franchise -- a story like that would not feel earned at all.

I get that Scott's story was not well-served by Singer. But we have to pick and choose what arcs get featured in the MCU. Personally, I don't want "Scott growing up" to be one of them. We've already established I don't want to start this franchise with Xavier training students for the first time. I would much rather see Scott already in a position of authority.

I just don't see how anyone is going to have a problem with there being adult mutants who were trained prior to the beginning of the first MCU film. You don't give the audience nearly enough credit. I guarantee you that Marvel is going to put the focus on X-Men who haven't been the stars before. Which means that this is the perfect chance to give us the adaptation of Scott his fans have been waiting for. An inspiring leader for the young mutants Feige and company select to be the focal point of the new franchise.

 

[The Infernal]

If you start with a 32 year old Cyclops who has been learning and leading for 16 years like Captain Wagner is suggesting, you are losing 5 movies worth of development for the character.

Thank f***.

We don't need origin upon origin yet again, especially in the mcu. Enough with the origin porn. I've no interest in waiting another decade just to get the team to the place the audience wants to see them.

 

[Marvel united]

I get that Scott's story was not well-served by Singer. But we have to pick and choose what arcs get featured in the MCU. Personally, I don't want "Scott growing up" to be one of them. We've already established I don't want to start this franchise with Xavier training students for the first time. I would much rather see Scott already in a position of authority.

But shouldn't it be less about what arcs are the most popular and more about what serves the MCU and what makes sense for the X-Men?

I just don't see how anyone is going to have a problem with there being adult mutants who were trained prior to the beginning of the first MCU film.

Nobody has a problem with that. What makes no sense is starting with this Scott:

As opposed to this Scott:


The former is literally Scott Summers at the end of his rope. A man who has been through hell and back (literally) and become the figure head of mutant rights. The latter is a young man still in the early years of his occupation as a superhero who still has a lot to learn.

You don't give the audience nearly enough credit. I guarantee you that Marvel is going to put the focus on X-Men who haven't been the stars before. Which means that this is the perfect chance to give us the adaptation of Scott his fans have been waiting for. An inspiring leader for the young mutants Feige and company select to be the focal point of the new franchise.

I highly doubt they will. They aren't going to get the X-Men back: their crown jewelry, and have Scott and the other X-Men in the background -- playing Hank Pym to a young group of mutants. This is material that has only been truly prevalent in the last 8 years or so since Avengers vs. X-Men happened. When Marvel got Spider-Man back, they didn't start Peter Parker off as a 35 year old so he could mentor a young Miles Morales and bring him into the forefront of the Spider-Man franchise. Scott and Jean, Storm etc becoming the face/figure heads of mutant activism is something that has to be earned over the course of multiple films.

But the thing is -- You still want Marvel to tell a coming of age story about a group of kids finding themselves. But the way I see it, If we're going to have a teenage group of mutants as the focus of the movie, I'd want it to be about Scott, Jean and Storm. Not Tempus, Gentle and Goldballs. Those characters can be on the roster but I don't want Scott and the signature as the grizzled Dumbledore-like figures in the background

 

[CaptainWagner]

But shouldn't it be less about what arcs are the most popular and more about what serves the MCU and what makes sense for the X-Men?


Nobody has a problem with that. What makes no sense is starting with this Scott:
View attachment 18909
As opposed to this Scott:
View attachment 18911

The former is literally Scott Summers at the end of his rope. A man who has been through hell and back (literally) and become the figure head of mutant rights. The latter is a young man still in the early years of his occupation as a superhero who still has a lot to learn.

I feel like we keep talking past each other. This is partly my fault, I apologize if I've been unclear. I want the same, second version of Cyclops. I don't want angry, neo-Magneto Cyclops, I think that was a terrible direction for the character to take. I think his storylines become much more interesting post- Giant Size.

I highly doubt they will. They aren't going to get the X-Men back: their crown jewelry, and have Scott and the other X-Men in the background -- playing Hank Pym to a young group of mutants. This is material that has only been truly prevalent in the last 8 years or so since Avengers vs. X-Men happened. When Marvel got Spider-Man back, they didn't start Peter Parker off as a 35 year old so he could mentor a young Miles Morales and bring him into the forefront of the Spider-Man franchise. Scott and Jean, Storm etc becoming the face/figure heads of mutant activism is something that has to be earned over the course of multiple films.

But it's not the same as Spider-Man. With Spider-Man, Peter IS the franchise. With the X-Men, that's just not the case. There are plenty of major X-Men who have never been the focus of a movie. So while if Marvel called me up and hired me to write the franchise, I'd choose newbies like Quentin, Oya, and Anole to lead the story, I know that isn't realistic. But there's plenty of classic characters who got the short end of the stick from Bryan Singer and the Logan/Charles/Eric and Friends movies. The New Mutants. Iceman. Rogue. M. Jubilee. Northstar and Aurora. Warpath. Armor. And of course, Kitty Pryde. If I had to place a bet on who the central character of the MCU X-Men will be, I'd say Kitty.

 

[Frankeh]

nahh... Thor learning humility and humanity is a lesson learned over the course of the film. If your character doesn't learn or grow throughout a film, that's a crap movie. But the X-Men being 20-ish rather than teens does not prevent them from learning and growing to become heroes at that later age. Panther's comics origin is irrelevant to this discussion. And the X-Men, again, don't have to be a ten year old well-oiled team who have fought tons of villains, they can still be learning to be heroes at college age, so the Spidey example is a bit of a strawman

This is the same point I’ve been making for months to no avail. Because Singer’s X-Men somehow show the only way this could turn out, even though the SCRIPT was at fault there, NOT the characters ages. Not to mention Singer’s LIMITED vision of this property and it’s characters.

Marsden’s Cyclops could have absolutely had development. If Wolverine’s backstory was explored by having Stryker show up as a villain, Cyclops’ backstory could have been explored by having Sinister show up as a villain. It’s really not that hard and it writes itself.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

Marsden’s cyclops had all the potential in the world and they had every opportunity to make him a major player like he should have absolutely been.

Probably one of, if not my biggest gripe with the FoX-Men series.

 

[Marvel united]

I feel like we keep talking past each other. This is partly my fault, I apologize if I've been unclear. I want the same, second version of Cyclops. I don't want angry, neo-Magneto Cyclops, I think that was a terrible direction for the character to take. I think his storylines become much more interesting post- Giant Size.

Okay, glad that's cleared up. So more of Astonishing Scott - I'm guessing. But that version of Scott needs pre-development too. You're talking about rushing into a version of Cyclops that had 41 years of development.. Sigh. The Scott in Giant-Sized was only 20 years old and still wet behind the ears.


I think the Neo-Magneto/Malcom X-lit Cyclops made sense with all that had transpired between House of M and AvX. It was an interesting route to the take the character and I wouldn't really mind if the MCU went down this route wayyy down the line. Cap has basically gone down this path in the MCU by going renegade

But it's not the same as Spider-Man. With Spider-Man, Peter IS the franchise. With the X-Men, that's just not the case. There are plenty of major X-Men who have never been the focus of a movie. So while if Marvel called me up and hired me to write the franchise, I'd choose newbies like Quentin, Oya, and Anole to lead the story, I know that isn't realistic. But there's plenty of classic characters who got the short end of the stick from Bryan Singer and the Logan/Charles/Eric and Friends movies. The New Mutants. Iceman. Rogue. M. Jubilee. Northstar and Aurora. Warpath. Armor. And of course, Kitty Pryde. If I had to place a bet on who the central character of the MCU X-Men will be, I'd say Kitty.

I agree, all of those characters were underutilized by Fox and there's room for all of them to be done justice in the MCU. Scott was one of the characters that Singer mistreated in all 4 of his attempts at the character. My whole deal is that I don't want Scott to be 100% when we meet him, I want room for growth. And I prefer him to be the central figure in the first movie and if not, one of the leads at least. To have him just be an inspirational figure/mascot in the background to inspire and lecture young mutants is a waste of one of the greatest characters in the franchise. I want to see him EARN that level of validation the same way Steve Rogers did. Cap was not the American ideal when we first met him... Seriously, why can't Cyclops be given the same treatment? Sigh...

Btw Rogue, M, Aurora, Iceman and Northstar are peers of Cyclops, Storm and Jean. So if you're gonna turn them into the Gandalf of the franchise then you have to do it to all classic mutants introduced between 1963 and 1991. Unless you're gonna change all of them to be wayyy younger than Scott so they can be the "young mutants" that see him as the inspiring leader.

That quoted post that you're responding to says "But the X-Men being 20-ish."

I know but I'm arguing against the central idea of a model mutant definitive Cyclops. I could compromise to 20-somethings as long as they don't show up with more experience than all of the Avengers. This is my potential solution to the problem:

One scenario i see working, that fits within Marvel's storytelling model. The O5 X-Men were a team in 2010/2012 (not 2003) but they disbanded for whatever reason. They haven't been fighting Magneto, they haven't been fighting Sentinels, Shadow King, the Brood and all of their rogues all this time. They are in their mid 20s now and they've all went their seperate ways. Staying out the spotlight. When the mutant boom happens in the 2020s, Charles brings them back together along with new members and they aren't seasoned badassses because they are rusty with their powers. Maybe Scott was secretly saving people during the Thanos invasion. Isolated incidents like that. But Uncanny X-Men in 2022-2023 is a pseudo origin story in the sense that the X-Men are rediscovering who they are.

This would be similar in concept at least to what they're doing with Captain Marvel. I don't see any scenario where Marvel starts the X-Men off as seasoned heroes who are at their peak. Developing characters like that is much more difficult. That's why they've never done it with any of their solo/team movies. This is an important fact about the MCU that should not be ignored.

A 32 year old Cyclops introduced In 2022, who has been training since the X-Men formed in 2003 - has 19 years of experience. More experience than Captain America AND, Iron Man - the godfather of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. Think about how illogical that is in the grand scheme of the MCU.

 

[Iceman]

Marsden’s cyclops had all the potential in the world and they had every opportunity to make him a major player like he should have absolutely been.

Probably one of, if not my biggest gripe with the FoX-Men series.

Yep. X2 would have been a good time to develop him further but he had no screentime.

 

[CaptainWagner]

Btw Rogue, M, Aurora, Iceman and Northstar are peers of Cyclops, Storm and Jean. So if you're gonna turn them into the Gandalf of the franchise then you have to do it to all classic mutants introduced between 1963 and 1991. Unless you're gonna change all of them to be wayyy younger than Scott so they can be the "young mutants" that see him as the inspiring leader.


I know but I'm arguing against the central idea of a model mutant definitive Cyclops. I could compromise to 20-somethings as long as they don't show up with more experience than all of the Avengers. This is my potential solution to the problem:

This would be similar in concept at least to what they're doing with Captain Marvel. I don't see any scenario where Marvel starts the X-Men off as seasoned heroes who are at their peak. Developing characters like that is much more difficult. That's why they've never done it with any of their solo/team movies. This is an important fact about the MCU that should not be ignored.

A 32 year old Cyclops introduced In 2022, who has been training since the X-Men formed in 2003 - has 19 years of experience. More experience than Captain America AND, Iron Man - the godfather of the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe. Think about how illogical that is in the grand scheme of the MCU.

I don't really think there's any need or reason to expect them to be sticklers about the traditional age groupings. The only ones that should be the same age are those who have specific relationships with each other.

I think the missing point is that I don't envision Scott being the focus of the stories. The sort of development you talk about would happen with the focal mutants. Scott would be support. I'm just personally more interested in seeing him grow in relation to his own students and potentially questioning Xavier's more dubious actions than see him struggle to become a leader. At this point, that arc has kind of become cliched within the MCU.

Also, I really don't think Cyclops having more experience than other heroes is illogical. He's been training and operating in secret for years. It establishes him as a big deal. And let's face it, odds of Scott meeting Tony or Steve at this point are sadly pretty slim.

 

[Herofan]

Yep. X2 would have been a good time to develop him further but he had no screentime.

Jean had more/better screentime in 2 than 1 so back then I was really hoping that that somehow meant that would likewise be the case with Cyclops (especially with the plot being Dark Phoenix) in 3.